Today's News

United Nations Unanimously Passes Weapons Ban

NEW YORK – A spontaneous celebration erupted in the U.N. General Assembly after representatives of 192 member states unanimously ratified the Comprehensive Arms Ban Treaty. The treaty outlaws possession, production and trade of military equipment ranging from small arms to nuclear warheads.

The U.S.’s stockpile of W.M.D.s, which includes arms like the one above, will soon be a relic of the past.

The U.S.’s stockpile of W.M.D.s, which includes arms like the one above, will soon be a relic of the past.

“This is watershed moment in the security of people and the security of the planet itself,” said U.S. President Barack Obama. “With weapons off the table, we can finally focus on the world’s real threats: global poverty, pollution, and climate change.”

The Comprehensive Arms Ban Treaty is an initiative of the U.N.’s new Global Security Protocol, which identifies environmental sustainability as its prime directive.

“We cannot have any kind of security unless our planet remains livable,” said Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. “The tens of trillions of dollars freed by disarmament makes it easier to focus on the big-picture issues.”

The weapons ban includes extensive subsidiies for the retooling of arms manufacturers. Hours after the agreement was reached, German weapons giant Heckler & Koch announced its first contract to take advantage of the incentive packages by refitting its P11 assault pistol factory to produce an improved “life straw,” an individual water filtration system that greatly reduces waterborne disease. The company’s plan will use former weapons brokers to deliver the straws, and they will train former child soldiers to handle the labor-intensive task of local distribution.

Impetus for the C.A.B.T. developed after the 1998 European Union Code of Conduct, which prohibits selling weapons to countries that may use them for external aggression or internal oppression, went largely unheeded. In one contravention of the code, Europe did not cease trade with the United States and Britain despite their unprovoked invasion of Iraq in 2003.

In Britain, massive public protests, including a sit-in that blocked exit from the British Parliament for two weeks, convinced the government to reverse course and uphold the E.U. Code of Conduct, as well as to support passage of the C.A.B.T.

One of the primary focuses of the C.A.B.T. is small arms, which kill one person every minute, 75 percent of them women and children. A survey conducted last May showed fewer than one-tenth of one percent in favor of continuing these deaths. In addition to mandating the immediate cessation of production, the C.A.B.T. includes a buyback program to repossess most of the 640 million small arms already in circulation, and melt them down in small mobile smelters which will recycle the steel into agricultural tools and equipment to be distributed locally.

As for the 20,350 nuclear warheads known to exist, they will be destroyed using monitoring procedures developed under the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. The last country to sign off on the new plan was North Korea, who agreed to dismantle their last warhead simultaneously with that of the U.S. The disarmament will take place in a ceremony organized and televised by members of the now defunct Olympic Games Committee. The Olympic Games were canceled in December after most member nations realized that contests to see who could do useless things in the name of archaic national boundaries are not helping anyone.

Ailing leader Kim Jong Il made a rare appearance to comment. “Finally, we have rid ourselves of the Olympics. Our best athletes will do useful and strenuous things. And we are very pleased to no longer need bombs to protect ourselves from Americans with more bombs. We can now focus on avoiding the collapse of our planet’s ecosystem, and on other pursuits the Great Leader would have applauded. The people of North Korea will enjoy this challenging, bright future immensely.”

29 Comments so far ...

And there will be nothing but ponies and rainbows.

Comment on November 12, 2008 06:34 pm

Swords into ploughshares, and study war no more, hallelujah!

Comment on November 13, 2008 03:02 am
3. meme

but i don’t like ponies

|-:

Comment on November 13, 2008 08:44 am
4. Bob

Hahaha, stupidity.

Comment on November 13, 2008 12:14 pm
5. john

Olympic games, let alone the dope syndrome of nowadays, are a spot in which the athlete is not only compting other athletes, but above all, competes himself/herself and human limits of capabilities.

It’s a struggle against yourself, primarily, a demonsration of willingness, courage and resulting effort.

no need to blame OG in the name of war.

Comment on November 13, 2008 01:59 pm
6. AA

Silly people… (in the comments) the whole point of this article is to imagine a world without war and conflict (because everyone has their needs taken care of) yet you can’t even do that… you are limited by your paltry imagination…

Comment on November 13, 2008 03:18 pm
7. Gianfranco

Great! This is so great! But… What use will athletes be put too? Mmm… Running giant hamster wheels to provide electricity for people without contamination? LMAO… I bet there would be a place for sport matches and determining “who’s the limit breaker” even if this didn’t revolve around abusive amounts of wealth nor national pride… After all, nationalism is a disease. I love the proposal but I feel I’ve been tricked out of half of it…

Comment on November 14, 2008 04:51 am
8. Mabus

AA, it’s easy to imagine these things. It’s also easy to imagine fluffy clouds and unicorns. Imagining things doesn’t make them real.

Imagination is a vital human resource, but it must also encompass the many ways that things can go wrong, not only the ways they can go right. (Do you suppose the world would be a very different place if the inventors of the automobile had imagined global warming? But all they were thinking of was the improvement of travel conditions.)

Comment on November 14, 2008 05:19 am
9. jason

All lib’s and sand dinks should be shot, good or bad, there’s no difference anyway, who care’s, you people disgust mt . thank you Marine Iraq war vet for how you served my country. i will go back to cluching my bible, stareing at my NRA membership and hold my automatic weapon and wait for the next civil war. God bless America

Comment on November 14, 2008 04:50 pm
10. Ian

It would have been great to see the headline ‘U.S. and Israel Force World-Wide Ban on use of Cluster-bombs’ considering that every other country in the world apart from them is about to do so.

Comment on November 14, 2008 05:21 pm
11. Mayday

Wow Jason, that is incredibly imaginative. Ever think that Iraq war vet may have joined the military to protect the freedom that you apparently hate so much? What about thanking our aging WWII vets that fought against fascism, something that seems to come so naturally for you.

Comment on November 14, 2008 11:25 pm
12. Anonymous

And what about the pockets of people who decide that they don’t really want to hand over their weapons? Will it be easy hunting for them? Are people that willing to hand over their freedom to own a firearm? As Thomas Jefferson said, “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”

Also, bear in mind that it was through the blood of patriots and *gasp* guns and bullets that earned our independence from the British Empire.

I really like how the projection of these world leaders feel that they can speak on behalf the entirety, not majority, of the population of the country they represent. In order for that to happen, people will either have to be brainwashed or a widespread inquisition looking for dissenters to be subjected to a process of “convincing”.

Even in real life and current times, bear in mind, Barack Obama is a human being, and even further, a politician, NOT this messianic figure that people are portraying him as. I don’t know, but I was raised to take everything that comes out of a politician’s mouth with a grain of salt.

Comment on November 15, 2008 12:40 pm
13. Gianfranco

The point aint really ’bout Obama doing all this, that would be too much to ask and too US-centric, the point is to give an utopian dream…

Comment on November 17, 2008 09:30 am
14. Bridget

With the exception of this and the Big Box Stores article, I love everything on this site. (can’t make every one happy I guess) I don’t understand; is this saying that I should imagine individual citizens giving up their right to bear arms? Or is this only supposed to be on a larger scale, so as to help abolish the means for war? While I like to think of myself as an intelligent individual, I just don’t understand how taking guns away from our citizens is going to help anything. I like knowing that if my home were to be broken into and my family put in danger, I have a something that can protect us. I don’t break the law… hell I don’t even speed. The dangerous people are already criminals, so they sure as hell don’t have anything to gain by willingly giving up their arms. I have my guns legally and I have never once used any of them against another person. But I guess if our country overwhelmingly feels I do not have a right to protect myself and my family against criminals with guns, I too, will become a criminal (though I hate sounding like such a republican, I really feel that way). I cannot imagine willingly giving up a freedom, any freedom. As you can tell, I’m not a liberal; I’m a libertarian. Why can’t we just keep the freedoms we were promised and only punish those who abuse those freedoms?

Comment on November 17, 2008 01:29 pm
15. jesse

Awesome! I can’t wait until all those weapons are gone so the strong can prey upon the weak like nature intended. Steel cage deathmatch, anyone?

Comment on November 17, 2008 05:17 pm
16. Owen

This article expresses the true sentiments of those everywhere who think that conservatism is the great evil, that all those communist dictators are really the peace-loving people who are only starving their own people to punish America, and that everything in Iraq that we’ve done is wrong. These same people know that our military has rebuilt Iraq, but they’re keeping that secret until next year so that they can give the credit to their hero. How laughable that Kim Jong Il is a peacelover and that Bush has been the problem.
The real losers in this new world the Times has envisioned will be the middle class and anyone who is a conservative; their finances will be taken and their liberties will evaporate.

Comment on November 17, 2008 08:36 pm
17. Michael Ibarra

Oh come one! Even I’m not that liberal, LMAO. Just ban nukes and other dangerous things like bio-chemical warfare and torture, and the world will be much better right there. But the right to defend yourself against nations who aren’t in the U.N and won’t stop carrying weapons is an important right, you morons lol!

Comment on November 19, 2008 05:53 pm
18. Heather T.

Let’s see, the people who use guns against other people generally have the guns illegally while good citizens use them for protection if and ONLY if they need them… so we take guns out of good peoples hands and the villians… uh, give them back to? Are you serious? Letj’s have a black market of guns! Fantastic! Then when a rapist breaks into your home to rape your wife and daughter you can sit there and watch while he holds an illegal gun to your head! Brilliant! And one more reminder, a gun is an object… it will not shoot for the heck of it, but a person will. Duh.

Comment on November 20, 2008 03:43 pm
19. Martyn

We should all know that what is written here is a utopian dream written tongue in cheek. The main point as I see it is this. We just need to stop (or at least drastically reduce) humans from killing one another.
One of my favourite quotes is “there is not one tree in the world which has branches that attack other branches”
We dont need any more technology until we can stop killing and oppressing each other with it.

Comment on November 23, 2008 12:22 am
20. muon

A ban requires a workable enforcement mechanism. What is the enforcement mechanism for a total ban of enforcement mechanisms?

Comment on November 26, 2008 09:12 pm
21. Gianfranco

Heather. More crimes are made by those who legally own weapons than by those that own them illegally…

Owen… You are an asshole…

Jesse… That’s already happening, asshole.

Bridget, forsaking weaponry and becoming defenseless aint the same, even tools can become weapons at times of need.

Ibarra, any attempt to attack might be successful at the start, but as soon as it started there are many means to quickly recover all the lost weaponry and by population alone all affiliated with the UN have greater power.

Martyn. Well, only problem is… Where did they oppose building new technology?

Muon. You are wrong, enforcement mechanisms are required when you have something to ENFORCE. VOLUNTARY decision to erradicate weaponry needs no enforcement.

Comment on December 5, 2008 05:24 am
22. Bryan

hey gianfranco, if u think calling people assholes is making a point, your an idiot.
And false, more crimes are committed with illegally bought guns than legally bought ones, why do you think the NRA uses that fact when ever someone tries to put restrictions on buying and selling guns.
And like Ibarra said if one nation decided they didn’t want this, and invade somewhere, what then. Do you know your history, after Pearl Harbor, most of the Pacific fleet was gone, if Japan had continued there attack with an invasion there would have been nothing to stop them. Half of the US could be part of Japan right now. And what power, the UN will have no more power, there only power is the fact that the US is its biggest backer, and we have a shitload of weapons. These countries the UN keeps inline are not scare of UN sanctions, there scared of US military action.
I also wonder who is going to police the world, because there will alway be law breakers. What makes you think that people, or countries won’t break this law. African Tribes use weapons to figure out who there leader is, they grow up with weapons, its part of there culture. Theres no way of making them give them up.
so, Gianfranco, ur an asshole

Comment on December 11, 2008 01:49 pm
23. Gianfranco

An asshole called me an asshole… LMAO… an asshole that thinks I need to make a point when discussing with assholes like im, yeah right…

Parl Harbor, irony how the republicans want to deny any imperialism on their part and end mentioning how another country wanted to go imperalistic by attack overseas domains as Pearl Harbour is… Then the picture is drawn and painted… So the UN is just a faccade, a way to let the US be the imperialistic dog, I mean, corrupt cop, that policies everyone else… Now the assholes thinks his republican allies (cut of the same loaf where the ku klux klan was got from) deserve choosing good from bad in the world… and further misunderstands the article to mean that no such thing as a weapon would exist; the concept in here is all on military weaponry, far more lethal than the one necessary to restrain criminals (or law breakers). Even Africa aint a good example but I wont waste my time explaining that to the guy that things they are 500% belligerent, yeah, like they were texans… Furthermore, someone that believes in the figures made by the NRA… yeah right…

Comment on December 17, 2008 02:28 am
24. Bryan

haha, still getting your point across by calling me an asshole. I mean im just throwing a shot in the dark here now, but im guessing that your a democrat, or a liberal by the way you generalize and stereotype about republicans. Yes all Republicans are racists, and bigots. And all of them are in the KKK. And when i said that the US is basically the enforcer of the UN, i didnt say that it should be like that, the US should not police the world. The US should start dealing with itself rather then the world. And back to the issue at hand, the story really does say all weapons.

“One of the primary focuses of the C.A.B.T. is small arms…”

Im not going to quote the whole thing its right above, if you dont know what small arms means, it means assault riles, sub-machine guns, and pistols. If these weapons are not produced then what will the police use in case some does gets a weapon and uses it.
I like how you keep putting words in my mouth, i never said everyone in Africa was violent, just said that they have weapons, and they would not give them up just because a group of people said they have to. I went to high school with a kid who grow up in Somalia, he was given an AK-47 when he turned of age to carry one. He would use to to protect himself and his animals his family owned.

Comment on December 17, 2008 10:23 am
25. Gianfranco

Liberals and democrats have more sense than republicans but I’m neither… And well yeah it gives one paragraph against small arms… But then that’s the feeble point of the article (but not of the imaginary CABT) since “small arms” would include or exclusde hunting riffles? let say it extended to firearms, does it includes or excludes kitchen knifes? baseball bats? what a small arm is and what is it not? But that makes this even better on that level… this a fake article about a fake treaty… but the relationship between article and treaty is wholly realistic; i.e. one reads the article and questions are still needed to know what exactly the treaty contained. I had take that by small arms it extends only to military weapons of the kind foot soldiers would use (grenades, grenade-launchers, machine guns, etc.). And that’s perfect… other weapons are more than enough fi not too much…

Comment on December 17, 2008 06:26 pm
26. i love the USA

i hpe to god that is pointed the right way at the emny the un and middle east with that missle hopw e send the building crumblig

Comment on December 18, 2008 10:01 pm

Go pound sand, I will keep my ar15 and my Christian faith, you can keep your “change”.

Comment on December 20, 2008 01:16 am
28. faithless

I see good arguments pro and con for controlling the herd (people) but ultimately it is always a personal choice. I personally will not give up my old single shot 12 gauge. If u invade my home with intent of harm u will be dispatched with no more thought than of a rabid dog. Once a year it provides my freezer with meat. Occasionally it blows the smithereens out of clay pigeons. Yes I am afraid I am one of those “just try to take away old Betsy people” dead or off to spend your tax dollars sitting in prison. Have a pleasant day.

Comment on September 18, 2009 04:14 pm
29. Anomon

This will do much more harm than good. What about criminals who refuse to hand over their weapons? It will be free reign for them. And what about non U.N. countries? We won`t be able to defend ourselves against them.

Comment on November 7, 2009 02:02 pm
(required)
(will not be published) (required)
(opitional)